I guess you are right that I should have written someone in, but I just don't see a point when everyone is hung up on Rep or Dem. Like was said earlier, there are more options!

Honestly, although a third party on the ticket is idealistic at best, I fully support someone writing in a candidate - even if it's your uncle. At least there would be some action, some stake in the ground. I supported my stepson's right to choose Gary Johnson, even though it takes something away from the big picture. He exercised his right and accepted his responsibility as a citizen. Write your candidate in next time - at least you'll have your say in the matter. No, it might not change the outcome, but you'll have said something.

Honestly, although a third party on the ticket is idealistic at best, I fully support someone writing in a candidate - even if it's your uncle. At least there would be some action, some stake in the ground. I supported my stepson's right to choose Gary Johnson, even though it takes something away from the big picture. He exercised his right and accepted his responsibility as a citizen. Write your candidate in next time - at least you'll have your say in the matter. No, it might not change the outcome, but you'll have said something.

Fair point there. I just wish our vote really mattered. The electoral college has made me angry too many times I guess. I finally just said F it!

Yes, SOMEONE does have to win, and I don't have to be the one responsible for it. I'm not standing on a soapbox, I said I voted by not voting. Plain and simple. Don't make it out to be anything more than it is.

That's the biggest cop-out I've ever seen.
"I don't have to be the one responsible for it."
Smh...

That might make sense if "Neither" is an option on the ballot, but SOMEONE has to win, the other has to lose. You accomplished nothing with your non-action. It's your prerogative, but don't stand on a soapbox in front of the rest of us. It's just rhetoric at this point.

Most people don't realize it, but Gary Johnson carried 5% of the Ohio vote and 4% for Colorado.

That would have been the difference for Romney in each state. IMHO, those people who voted for Johnson DID make a difference. They won't make the mistake of alienating the Libertarian wing of the party.

That's the biggest cop-out I've ever seen.
"I don't have to be the one responsible for it."
Smh...

It's no cop-out, it's the flat-out truth. Don't blame me when everything falls apart. I didn't endorse either one of'em.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scipio337

Most people don't realize it, but Gary Johnson carried 5% of the Ohio vote and 4% for Colorado.

That would have been the difference for Romney in each state. IMHO, those people who voted for Johnson DID make a difference. They won't make the mistake of alienating the Libertarian wing of the party.

Well, not unless they never want to win another national election.

They did? Is a Libertarian going to be participating in the same debates in four years with the Democrats and Republicans, putting all three of them on a level playing field, or are the independents gonna wind up debating against each other in rented fire halls?

Yeah, that's what I thought...

Quote:

Originally Posted by klkb

Awesome. I hate the electoral college idea, too. Popular vote should determine the winner, even if it takes until the next day to determine who it is.

Well shit, there it is, yet I'm "standing on my soapbox." I'm glad you FINALLY saw the light I've been shining in your face between your insults and attacks, along with everyone else's.

But the 47% of people who don't make enough money to pay federal income tax apparently didn't vote for Obama because the poor states went red. How can you claim that low-income people are electing Democrats when the poor states always go GOP?

If anything, poverty is good for Republicans because poor people don't vote (or they vote socially conservative) and those around them who aren't poor but see others collecting entitlements always seem to vote GOP in hopes that the entitlements will be taken away.

Momentum? When will there be enough? 100 years? 1000? This has been going on forever. Right now it hurts the Republican vote. Years ago it was Ralph Nader that took away from the Democratic vote. At least Nader got his name out in the public. Outside of the Internet no one knows who Gary Johnson is. If Libertarians want to be taken seriously, they can't only appear a few weeks before the election. They have to be out in the public's face, starting now.

The fact is not all Americans use facts or even any kind of knowledge when they vote. Sadly, the majority vote for someone they like. McCain's downfall was that he was not a polished speaker. He got waxed in the debates. Romney was better, but he couldn't effectively handle adversity. When Obama fought back, he had a beaten look on his face. He couldn't counter punch in the debate.

That's a fair counter argument. However it is hard for third parties to get their name put there when they do not have the funding that the two main parties do. Why does the government pay for campaigning anyways?

Quote:

Originally Posted by klkb

Y'all are funny, spinning your 35"s in the mud with each other. I haven't read all of the posts carefully since they are all saying pretty much the same thing, but... Does anyone recall that Bush inherited a House and Senate both controlled by the Democrats? Could someone have done better than Obama? I can't imagine anyone could've done worse. Honestly, I'm traditionally conservative, but I voted against Obama because he his fiscally inept. He proved that. As a woman I will say that Romney's social views scared me, but the economy is more important to me these days.

What disheartens me is how many times I've heard our young adults, those who were able to vote for the first time, say that their vote didn't count because of the electoral college and how so many absentee ballots were handled. Here we've declared a winner of the election and the polls hadn't even closed in Alaska. How are they supposed to feel about casting their vote? The whole system is a mess.

And a third party on the ballot? Idealistic at best, realistically preposterous. At least right now I can feel decent about 51% of voters having elected our president, but if all a majority would need to be is 36% or 95 stupid electoral votes, then more citizens would be against said new leader. We're at each other's political throats now? Throw another party into the mix. That'll improve our relationships with each other.

I'm not sure which new country I'm going to choose, but I'm leaving this one until things are a hell of a lot better. No, it doesn't help things at all, but my family's financial security - and everything we've worked so hard for - is more important to me than sticking around to help reform the system. That's out of my hands. I've got lots of research to do, but I'm looking forward to educating myself on how other parts of the world handle their affairs.

The multiparty system seems to work just fine in the rest of the Democratic world. You actually have options instead of two extremes.

Also, the name calling stops here. Its been civil up until the past page or so. It ends now.

It's no cop-out, it's the flat-out truth. Don't blame me when everything falls apart. I didn't endorse either one of'em.

They did? Is a Libertarian going to be participating in the same debates in four years with the Democrats and Republicans, putting all three of them on a level playing field, or are the independents gonna wind up debating against each other in rented fire halls?

Yeah, that's what I thought...

Well, there's option #2 of more Libertarian ideas in a platform/candidate.

See Paul, Ron.

Sorry, the act of not voting is not a protest vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Con Artist

Well shit, there it is, yet I'm "standing on my soapbox." I'm glad you FINALLY saw the light I've been shining in your face between your insults and attacks, along with everyone else's.

Your vote actually counts for MORE in the electoral college, unless you live in one of the five largest states.

The electoral college is around because we're a collection of indifidual commnwealths, not just an administrative district. The "constituency" you see in the UK and other parliamentary systems aren't individual, indpendent commonwealths.

The minute we lose the EC and elections are soley decided by urban states, we cease to be a republic.

Pure ignorance. I lived through the horrible recession of the Carter years and the recovery of the Reagan years. Anyone who doesn't think that Republicans support the middle class are closed minded and only listen to the rhetoric.

Horrible? My dad had a 20% interest rate on a savings account in 78!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Con Artist

Absolutely not, Tom. When is the last time a Republican did ANYTHING for the middle class, other than send us into a recession?

Probably somewhere around 1988

Quote:

Originally Posted by Con Artist

Of course I did, Tom, and I stand by it. So Reagan lowered unemployment numbers and taxes. He's not the only one who's done it. And then what happened under George Bush Sr.?

Can't speak for the economy 88-92, but we got to enjoy Dan Quayle, and I'm content with that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by scipio337

Most people don't realize it, but Gary Johnson carried 5% of the Ohio vote and 4% for Colorado.

That would have been the difference for Romney in each state. IMHO, those people who voted for Johnson DID make a difference. They won't make the mistake of alienating the Libertarian wing of the party.

Well, not unless they never want to win another national election.

I'm still iffy about whether or not libertarians can survive in the republican party. There are just too many religious righters at the top of the party to support gay marriage and/or abortion.

I find it interesting that people "vote by not voting".. it is like they think that there is only one thing to vote for, which is very much not the case. those of you who didnt vote, i guess i sort of see what is going on in your mind. you dont approve of the two presidential choices(yes, there were more, but lets face it, one of those two are the only possible winners), but what about all the other issues on the ballot? do you not care who your local representatives are? or the other things that appear on a ballot? an example would be in virginia the ballot also contained two questions on state wide issues, that directly affect the people living there. I know maryland had a few as well, one involving gay marrige and another with gamplling at casionos(tom, maybe you know them better than me), and than there is colorado and washington(or maybe it was oregon). these are just the ones i can think of off the top of my head while sitting at my desk at work. i am sure EVERY SINGLE STATE had things on their ballot other then the pres. candidates. those of you who did not vote, do you not care about these issues? do you not care about how your state is run, or the laws it creates?

That's a fair counter argument. However it is hard for third parties to get their name put there when they do not have the funding that the two main parties do. Why does the government pay for campaigning anyways?

Agreed.

__________________
Tom

"I've got two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."

I cant help but wonder what would have happened if Romney had picked Ron Paul or Gary Johnson as his running mate. I dont know what the next four will bring. I keep hoping that whatever it brings our citizens can remember we are still all Americans and no matter what political party you may choose to follow we need to put Americans first and foremost or our country will not survive.

__________________
I would take an unpleasant truth over a comfortable false hood. You learn nothing from lies, whether someone else is telling them to you, or you are telling them to yourself.

Well, there's option #2 of more Libertarian ideas in a platform/candidate.

See Paul, Ron.

Sorry, the act of not voting is not a protest vote.

You're damned right it was a "protest vote!"

Quote:

Your vote actually counts for MORE in the electoral college, unless you live in one of the five largest states.

The electoral college is around because we're a collection of indifidual commnwealths, not just an administrative district. The "constituency" you see in the UK and other parliamentary systems aren't individual, indpendent commonwealths.

The minute we lose the EC and elections are soley decided by urban states, we cease to be a republic.

"UNLESS YOU LIVE IN ONE OF THE FIVE LARGEST STATES." There it is, right from your own mouth. Now, MAYBE I'm wrong here, but EVERY VOTE should be considered EQUAL. What am I missing here, because what ever you're selling, I'm not buying it as justification for why I should vote.

Just my $.02 I live here behind the Iron curtain in Mass. I still vote. I know that here I am going to be in the minority of voters most time. I am unenrolled and pick whomever I think the best candidate is going to be. I say the I am in the minority because most here will vote for anyone with a (D) after their name. I still vote becuase there have been many many people that have given their lives so I can have that right. I'm not tell you that you should or shouldnt vote but that is the reason I do even though I know it may not make a big difference. However it has here in the past. Romney was our Govenor for a term. Also we were able to elect Scott Brown as well.

__________________
I would take an unpleasant truth over a comfortable false hood. You learn nothing from lies, whether someone else is telling them to you, or you are telling them to yourself.

"UNLESS YOU LIVE IN ONE OF THE FIVE LARGEST STATES." There it is, right from your own mouth. Now, MAYBE I'm wrong here, but EVERY VOTE should be considered EQUAL. What am I missing here, because what ever you're selling, I'm not buying it as justification for why I should vote.

Did you skip over the rest of the argument? Because we're a federalist republic.

Should California get more US Senate seats that Wyoming? They have 66x more people, why shouldn't they get more of a say in national policy?

Simply put, the tide changed when we stop being a nation that manufactures things to being a nation that consumes things.

The key to change in this country doesn't lie in the hands of the president. It lies in the hands of the twenty-somethings that would rather kill zombies on TV than go out and build something.
Just my $0.02.

As an educator (Spanish teacher), I believe MORE of our students have better access to better education than ever before. In addition, different demographic have access to materials than ever before...STILL....we are developing an even greater divide. Nobility vs everyone

We are educating JOB SEEKERS as opposed to job creators. Our goal is to create adults who have the credentials employers seek, NOT the ability to create jobs nor the access to resources to create business. And I am not speaking of small business owners. I am talking about nobility class business.

I have to say I agree with you, a protest vote would be a vote for "Bigfoot" or "Elmo".

By the way, I'm sure you know this, but California does get a larger say than Wyoming, in the house of representatives and the presidential elections

Right, but we have 2 Senators for each in the Senate. A bill still has to pass both the House and Senate.

In most other bi-cameral legislatures (Westminster style), the Senate is appointed. We have a pretty rare system in that we have direct elections for the "upper" Senate, and each commonwealth (state) gets the same number. In the Canadian Senate, Quebec gets 24 seats, and Nova Scotia only gets 10.

But the 47% of people who don't make enough money to pay federal income tax apparently didn't vote for Obama because the poor states went red. How can you claim that low-income people are electing Democrats when the poor states always go GOP?

Overlooked by Republicans. I'm smack dab in Skynyrd country and a couple of my FB friends couldn't wait to get online and say things like "yo yo yo I'm gettin an ebt card." I thought, wait almost every redneck I know gets assistance. I drive by the welfare office and it's mainly white. In my area those are republicans. I've seen so much hating on Obama in my area by rednecks. Last week a guy came through my job with 2 flags flying upside down and "Obama Loves Fags" and "Obama is a Muslim" written big on his windows. He almost got into a fight with another customer who served in Iraq. I see so much stuff like this down here. Just last night I saw a "Piss on Obama" bumper sticker. I did not vote for Bush and thought he was a doofus but I would never sport anything like that.
This is sweet justice to me and imo, as far as the presidential race goes, bigotry and racism has lost again.

__________________"I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead"

Overlooked by Republicans. I'm smack dab in Skynyrd country and a couple of my FB friends couldn't wait to get online and say things like "yo yo yo I'm gettin an ebt card." I thought, wait almost every redneck I know gets assistance. I drive by the welfare office and it's mainly white. In my area those are republicans. I've seen so much hating on Obama in my area by rednecks. Last week a guy came through my job with 2 flags flying upside down and "Obama Loves Fags" and "Obama is a Muslim" written big on his windows. He almost got into a fight with another customer who served in Iraq. I see so much stuff like this down here. Just last night I saw a "Piss on Obama" bumper sticker. I did not vote for Bush and thought he was a doofus but I would never sport anything like that.
This is sweet justice to me and imo, as far as the presidential race goes, bigotry and racism has lost again.

Wouldn't sport a Bush sticker but will claim everyone who didn't vote for Obama is racist.